I often become impatient when the person to whom I am
speaking (otherwise “haranguing”) fails to agree with propositions I consider
self-evident. In my elderly serenity, I now appreciate that I am not always
right (what a momentous and delayed discovery!), that my perspective on events
is largely a conditioned reflex and that there are a thousand ways of looking
at our complicated and perverse world.
 |
| Cameron visited by Thatcher, keepers of the flame |
I was brought up, largely unconsciously, with the Whig
version of history as purveyed by Macaulay and Trevelyan. This saw the Civil
War as the triumph of Parliament over Absolutism, confirmed by the Glorious
Revolution of 1688, the gradual increase in the power of the Commons in the 18th
century, the British leading and becoming prosperous in the Industrial
Revolution and the foundation of a great Empire (even after foolishly losing
the American colonies). Victory over dangerous Napoleon ushered in
parliamentary reform, free trade and the heyday of Victorian settled
government.
The tragic bloodshed of the Great War weakened all Europe
materially and financially creating slump and Fascism, but Britain stayed
democratic and played a heroic role in defeating Hitler. After WW2, socialism
was tried and mainly failed though the bi-partisan Welfare State endured. The
Empire morphed into the Commonwealth, our economy slowly revived – more
dynamically under Thatcher - and Britain, a staunch ally of the USA, is a
semi-detached if uneasy member of the EU. I imagine this is the underlying
narrative to which David Cameron and many in the centre of British politics
subscribe. It is true that aspects of this narrative are nationalistic,
self-deluding and complacent.
Quite different would be the historical perspective embraced
by Jeremy Corbyn, probably destined to be the new Leader of the Labour Party
and of Her Majesty’s Opposition. His adherents’ mind-set would regret the
dominance of Cromwell over the Diggers, Levellers and other radical sects in
the Civil War. The 18th century would be seen as a brutal struggle
suppressing the landless peasantry and the exploited new industrial working
class. Victorian politics would be characterised as a pre-occupation of a
selfish, wealthy and often aristocratic elite with civil rights for working
people only grudgingly conceded. The seminal influence of Karl Marx with his
anti-capitalist analysis would be emphasised and the subsequent policies of
Russia’s Lenin and Stalin admired.
The convulsions of
the 20th century would be put into the context of a struggle against
imperialism and racism in Germany and neo-colonialism in the USA. Liberation
movements in China, Africa, Latin America, and currently Syriza in Greece, Sinn
Fein in Ireland and Hamas in Palestine would deserve uncritical support. Their
idols would be Gandhi, Ho Chi Minh and Castro. The current British government
would be branded as irredeemably reactionary. Traditional socialist policies
such as nationalisation, disarmament, imposing high taxes on the rich and
increased welfare would be ardently proposed. Clearly there is a wide gap
between Cameron’s and Corbyn’s worlds; personally I have much sympathy with
Cameron and I see only fleeting flashes of insight from Corbyn, but there are
many nuances in the comprehensive
positions of both. I am reminded of W.S. Gilbert’s lines:
And Party Leaders you
may meet, in twos and threes in every street,
Maintaining with no
little heat, their various opinions.
 |
| Jeremy Corbyn in his Dave Spart outfit |
The perspective of supporters of the SNP, UKIP and the
Greens will be equally diverse and it is surprising there is ever any national
consensus. Yet politicians do broadly agree on many individual issues even if philosophically
there is a deep abyss between them. If even British politicians disagree on
fundamentals, how can the world seen through the eyes of Barack Obama (not to
mention Donald Trump!), Vladimir Putin, Angela Merkel and Xi Jinping ever be
peacefully reconciled?
The secret is Spin, Fudge and Compromise. Thus the
ignominious surrender of Greece to Europe is sold in Brussels as the EU being
“tough” and in Athens as a cleverly negotiated settlement that could have been
much worse. Russian military incursions
into Ukraine are ascribed to “volunteers” and her seizure of the Crimea
ignored. Chinese expansion in the islands of the South China Sea are justified
as “security concerns”. The nuclear ambitions of Iran set off an elaborate
diplomatic dance and bred a doubtful agreement. In Britain devolution is an
unholy mess, staggering on with illogical stitch-ups and perilous concessions.
The truth is we all have to rub along somehow and there is
no spectacle so wearying as a politician proclaiming his irrelevant principles,
often a luxury his country cannot afford. A basic ethical foundation is
necessary to underlie all actions but, as the man said The road to Hell is paved with good intentions!
SMD
13.08.15
Text Copyright © Sidney Donald 2015
No comments:
Post a Comment